get_gyro_hardware_lpf

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, but the description correctly implies it is a read-only operation with no side effects. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as data format or performance implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise, with two sentences and a type/default note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and efficiently conveys all necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple getter with no output schema, the description covers the core meaning but lacks details such as the exact data type representation (e.g., whether it returns a number or string) and any related configuration context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has no parameters, so schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by explaining the meaning of the returned values and the default, which goes beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it retrieves the hardware low-pass filter mode for the gyro chip and explains the meaning of possible values. It distinguishes itself from the set counterpart but does not explicitly differentiate from other gyro-related getters.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus other gyro filter getters (e.g., get_gyro_lpf1_static_hz). There is no mention of context or alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.